Whether you're racking up tuition fees now or still paying student loans after graduation, you know one thing is for sure: College is expensive. To make matters worse, the spending doesn't end at a semester of classes -- there's books that need to be purchased as well, and they're worth more than a little bit of pocket change.

But if you're going to school in California, a bit of relief has finally come your way in the form of two bills: SB 1052 and SB 1053.

Both bills, which were crafted by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), will allow California college students to download up to 50 core textbooks for free in the form of e-books. The e-books are for lower-division courses and are for classes at the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges.

More specifically, SB 1052 allows for the development of the e-books and the creation of the California Open Education Resources Council for e-book approvals. SB 1053 has developed the California Digital Open Source Library to store the new e-books.

"Many students are paying more than $1,000 every year on their textbooks, sometimes having to choose between buying the books they need or paying for food and other living expenses," said Steinberg.

The new e-book bills were signed by Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday. They are expected to go into effect starting in the 2013-14 school year.

Digital textbooks are certainly becoming the new way of learning in institutions around the globe. This new form of educational offerings was further boosted by Apple earlier this year, who released iBooks 2 and iBooks Author that allow for the creation of digital textbooks and makes them available for purchase on the iPad.

I love how Liberals will demonize any military action taken in the middle east, for example, but will fall all over themselves to legitimize Lincoln's actions. Which were, frankly, extreme and unwarranted. And lead to the slaughter of nearly a million Americans on both sides without even the attempt at peaceful negotiations.

They say the winners write the history books, and that's never been more evident then in the case of the Civil War.

If you think using the full power of the US military against it's own people, including burning down civilian cities to the ground, is an appropriate response to the events you've listed, well, that's on you.

I tend to look back on it and ask if how it turned out was better than if he had done nothing. Obviously we have a federal government with much more power over the states now, but in the end, the country did become stronger. Geopolitically, it was also a good move. The cost was that we set a precedent where the Constitution and Bill of Rights were much easier to steamroll past.

If things had gone differently, we likely would have had several wars between the north and south which would both be much weaker on their own.

It's difficult to speculate which would have been better. We should just spend our efforts trying to change what roles the government plays in current day politics. Bring back state rights and pass laws legally, rather than by lobby.

quote: If things had gone differently, we likely would have had several wars between the north and south which would both be much weaker on their own.

I don't know why people always jump to this conclusion. There is an equally possible chance that the Confederacy could have been brought to the table, and through negotiation and compromise, rejoined the Union leading to a stronger more Constitutional country.

However since diplomacy wasn't even attempted, this is all speculation.

quote: We should just spend our efforts trying to change what roles the government plays in current day politics. Bring back state rights and pass laws legally, rather than by lobby.

It's too late. Rebellions like the Civil War, historically, are the only things that lead to the massive types of reforms we're talking about.

Why would the Government give up that much power today? Not without a fight. They've murdered their own people before to hold onto that power, and they would do it again.

But Clown it's refreshing discussing this with someone who doesn't instantly pull the "you just want slavery" card whenever this topic comes up. You have no idea :)

I agree with you; a lot of the key actors on the north and south were in fact mutual life-long friends with little animosity towards one another. A lot of soldiers, despite a lot of animosity, had friends and even family and brothers on the other side.

Given that, I think you're right, the two would've either came to a negotiated compromise (like just returning to the original constitution), or would've agreed to be separate nations and cultures but brothers in blood, closer to one another then any other 2 countries, maybe in history.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer